(first posted 11/17/2015) One of Ford’s claims to fame was being the first to mass-produce the station wagon in 1929, and from there the body style developed into an important part of Ford’s model mix. In 1950 the Country Squire was introduced, and would soon be leading a successful new sub-segment, the fancy trim wagon from a low-price brand. The Country Squire would also become synonymous with the DI-NOC wood grain vinyl trim that served as the ubiquitous signature of upscale wagons. Plus, to keep their family haulers at the top of the sales charts, Ford kept pioneering innovations, including dual facing rear seats in 1965 and the Magic Doorgate in 1966. Ford’s marketers bragged about being the Wagonmaster, and buyers agreed.
By the late 1970s, however, the Country Squire’s status in swanky suburban driveways was under pressure, with the newly downsized Caprice/Impala winning the full size wagon wars in 1977 and 1978. Would Ford’s new, smaller Panther platform provide a suitable base for leaner, better full size wagons? Automotive testers were anxious to find out, and in the fall of 1978 they put the new Country Squire to the test. Would the newest wagons from Ford live up to the past glories of the Wagonmaster?
With the launch of the newly downsized LTD, Ford showcased the wagons prominently in the promotional mix. All of Ford’s famous wagon features, including the dual facing rear seats, Magic Doorgate and fake wood trim, made the transition to the downsized car. Plus, the smaller-on-the-outside wagons offered more passenger room inside, and cargo capacity that beat Ford’s competitors. To show off all the benefits, press units of the new Country Squire were made available, and Motor Trend took the bait, penning a piece on the newest offering from the Wagonmaster for their February 1979 issue.
Motor Trend kicked off the article by praising Ford for making sure that all the traditional wagon virtues were present and accounted for in the Country Squire. The article, though, is an entertaining period piece in that the new car is given credit for only having “minimal” squeaks and rattles and for offering better aerodynamics than before (about on par with a brick compared to a concrete block). Expectations were pretty low back then… Of course, the driver was also trying (unsuccessfully) to use the CB radio to avoid getting a ticket for going over the 55-mph speed limit on the highway, so I’d say it was a grim period in general.
Overall, Motor Trend was quite smitten with the packaging of the new Country Squire, especially the “command seating position.” By the late 1970s, U.S. manufacturers were discovering the benefits of good visibility and upright seating that had been practiced for years by many imports. It’s too bad the trend has now reversed, with makers from around the world increasingly offering only cocoons with small glass areas—well, I guess it minimizes the glare on mobile devices…
Some serious flaws were still evident. As with the LTD sedan, braking performance was abysmal, including long stopping distances and dangerous rear wheel lock-up. Interesting that the GM X-cars were so blasted for their brakes, when these Fords certainly seemed to have had major issues as well.
Also subpar was engine performance, even with the larger available 351 V8, both in terms of acceleration and fuel economy. Getting full size cars to simultaneously address both CAFE standards as well as customer expectations for performance was a big challenge.
Completely unacceptable was the build quality of the Country Squire tested, which featured a litany of problems resulting from sloppy workmanship. Particularly galling was the fact that the test car came directly from Ford, though the magazine noted that maybe the problem was that the car didn’t get any dealer prep prior to delivery. Right… Motor Trend was correct, however, to state that quality would become increasingly important to American buyers, a lesson that the Japanese manufacturers had already taken to heart well before 1979.
However, in all, Motor Trend enjoyed the Country Squire and felt it did its job well. So too did Consumer Guide in their Auto Test series. Usually very blunt in their criticism of their test cars, they were impressed with the new Ford wagons.
Ford got the top pick from Consumer Guide for full size wagons. The staffers were enamored with the unique features from the Wagonmaster, which made the LTD wagons versatile workhorses for passengers or cargo.
The accolades didn’t seem to matter to buyers though, as LTD wagon sales for model year 1979 dropped 5% versus 1978, declining to 67,887 units. That total was also far below the results achieved by the Caprice/Impala wagon, which sold 124,615 units for model year 1979 (down 2% from MY78).
Perhaps it was a telling sign that the days for the full size wagon would ultimately be numbered. While downsizing certainly helped the Country Squire become a better vehicle than its oversized predecessor, it couldn’t hold off the changing tastes of the times. The Wagonmaster had ruled from the 1950s into the 1970s. In 1979, who would have dreamed that the next king of family haulers was about to emerge from Highland Park?
The Panther based Fords/Mercurys/Lincolns seemed to get better and better as they model years passed by.
The full sized Chebbies started off brilliant and went downhill as the model years passed by.
My friend BILL MITCHELL (and I mean that sincerely – we can all discuss this in good friendly fun) – hopefully you get to read this!!
This post is very interesting for me. And I will tell you why. I have been boasting on CC for some time about the differences between our poorly made ’77 Caprice Estate and our well-built ’82 Country Squire. And these magazine articles opened my eyes and confirmed what I believe happens, even today with newly introduced models. It takes time for the manufacturers to get the bugs out of a new model and to get quality up to snuff. The issues that the ’79 Country Squire that Motor Trend tested mimic exactly what our ’77 Caprice Estate suffered from – poorly assembly quality. So by 1982, Ford had plenty of time to iron out the bugs and build a top quality car, which our Country Squire surely was. I now forgive our ’77 Caprice Estate as it too was an early production vehicle and laden with quality control issues. It isn’t fair to compare the two in that regard, and for that I do apologize.
Where I do see a distinct difference in the two vehicles is in driver comfort and overall drivability. The articles seem to favor the Ford as did my Dad. He always said he enjoyed the Ford’s seating position more than any car he owned before, and these articles clearly back that up. The seats themselves were extremely comfortable, and he thought the Ford always felt more confident and easy to maneuver, too.
As the years progressed, both brands were able to tweak their cars to fix any deficiencies and improve overall quality. Therefore in summary, I do think the Caprice and LTD were both very good vehicles. There will always be the debate of Ford vs. Chevy, until the day we die (or the brands die, whichever comes first!) And that strictly comes down to personal preference. You can’t go wrong with either of them.
Good point. We were a household of dedicated GM B body believers, but we had ’78 and up versions.
Although, we had friends that were pretty happy with their ’77s. GM built so many ’77s that they may have been able to make some corrections by the later part of the model year run.
Tom, thanks for the shout out. I do agree with you that first year cars tend to have more quality issues, especially in this era. Even when the cars got better with time, they were still a lot more hit and miss between good and bad cars than modern vehicles. I personally never owned a B-body or Panther from the late 1970’s (all mine were from the 1980s), but we did have a couple in the family, albeit a ’78 and two from ’79. All three cars proved to be reliable and reasonably well built for the era and were driven regularly until the 2000’s.
I also agree with you that the Ford had much better seats than the GM cars. The GM seats were less supportive and lower to the floor. Being low to the floor was never an issue for me since I usually max out the seat in every car for leg and headroom, but I do remember shorter drivers having a tougher time in the B-bodies without power seats. From my experience each had their pluses and minuses but they were both great platforms. That’s why I owned both. I mean, I will admit that I generally preferred my B-bodies over the Panthers but this was my opinion and I would never say either were bad cars.
I LOVE my 1991 Grand Marquis Colony Park… the last year of production of the traditional full-size Ford Motor Company station wagons….
It’s worth noting that Ford, even after the stunning success of the Chrysler minivan as a people mover, stubbornly continued to keep the full-size Panther wagon in production until the new ‘aero’ Panther arrived in 1992. They likely did so in the vain hope that the Chrysler minivan was just a passing fad, and would also explain why Ford, at least initially, took a very different approach with their Aerostar minivan (similar to GM’s Astro) in that they were traditional RWD, more suited to heavier, commercial duty than Chrysler’s lighter duty (but more efficient) FWD. Likewise, GM held out with a ‘bubble’ Caprice station wagon until 1996, the last year for the domestic, full-size, RWD station wagon.
OTOH, maybe Ford and GM ultimately called it correctly since they mostly side-stepped a serious FWD minivan contender and, instead, concentrated on the burgeoning SUV market.
Toyota, Honda, and now even Kia stepped in quite capably and took the market GM and Ford abandoned. Those companies understand the value of filling a gaping hole in your product line rather than trying to force families into less efficiently packaged and more expensive CUVs or SUVs.
Thinking about the Astro & Aerostar, I wonder if these were a result of influence by truck divisions, which I could easily imagine were not used to or favorable towards unibody FWD?
I would guess that a RWD truck-based BOF platform was much easier to put into production quickly than a unibody FWD.
The Aerostar and Astro were both unibody and did not really share much at all with their pickup cousins. Yes power trains were shared and things like brake pads but their suspension designs were different than the Ranger/S10.
I stand corrected. Front suspension on the Astro was from the B-bodies according to Wikipedia though.
Well one of the things that the Astro/Safari and Aerostar did better then the FWD vans was in towing. Far easier to tow with an Astro then a Caravan and towing capacities were higher for the RWD vans.
I think the Explorer, rather than any minivan, was seen by Ford as the Country Squire replacement — and Ford was right. Wagon enthusiasts lament the fact that Ford didn’t continue the wagon on the aero Panther restyle and through introduction of the bulletproof 4.6 modular engine, which together would have made a superb vehicle, surely better looking than the GM whale bodies. But Ford sold way, way more Explorers than they would have sold 90’s Country Squires, no matter how good they were.
“I think the Explorer, rather than any minivan, was seen by Ford as the Country Squire replacement — and Ford was right.”
Exactly. Everyone forgets that the big minivan players – Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and (now) Kia – had long ago put all their car eggs in the FWD basket, meaning it was a lot easier to use FWD for their minivans. Ford and GM, OTOH, were still going with RWD for their bread-and-butter full-size cars. So, it was substantially harder for Ford and GM to spread the cost of FWD minivans across their product lines.
Ford, in particular, bet heavily on the AWD SUV platform as the de facto station wagon replacement, and it paid off handsomely with big Explorer sales. Yeah, they might have lost out on the FWD minivan market, but I think Explorer profits handily offset what they lost.
Honestly, considering some of the mechanical issues the big selling minivans have had over the years (mostly transmission related), maybe Ford was right all along.
“The full sized Chebbies started off brilliant and went downhill as the model years passed by.”
Respectfully, not really.
Yes there was a period a few years after the downsized Chevies rolled out, where the wrong drivetrain, like a 267 V8 and Metric 200 tranny, would make for an excruciating driving experience.
But from 1987 on, when the Turbo 700 was beefed up and became bulletproof, and TBI was standard equipment on all but Olds 307-equipped cars (serial number “Y”, ended with the ’89 model year), the B-bodies had hit their sweet spot. Considering they offered the LT-1 for the final couple years, which even with their Optispark issues ran well – and economically for its size – I’m inclined to say they finished well. The line was discontinued to build more SUV’s in the factory where the B-bodies were made.
Plus the newer drivetrains are easily transplantable into the ’77 – ’86 models if you wish.
I had both an ’89 (owned from 1993-2002, the Olds 307 was replaced with a TPI 350 which turned that Caprice into a hot rod) and a ’91 (owned 2008-2012) Caprice wagon. The ’91, with a 305/Turbo 700, regularly got 22-23 MPG highway at 75-85 MPH.
When the GM B- and C-bodies debuted in the fall of 1976, that type of car was still the “heart” of the American family-car market. By 1987, these cars had been supplanted by GM’s front-wheel-drive A-bodies, and then by the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, in that role. The Panthers and the GM full-size cars were definitely better by 1987, but fewer people took notice, as they were considered a sideshow by that point.
That, and two more thoughts.
The period of 1980 through 1986 was pretty dark for the GM B and C bodies. The 1980 fuel economy and cost cutting oriented refresh took a real toll on these cars compared to the ’77-’79 versions. The best of the ’80 up versions seemed to be the ’83 and ’84 Buicks and Oldsmobiles with the 5.0 gas V-8.
While it is possible that the mechanics were cleaned up for ’87, that was about the time the cars that remained were plagued with door mounted seatbelts and some very questionable tack-on broughamtastic styling updates.
Ford’s path for the Panthers was one of continuous improvement from ’80 through ’90, when they even fitted the cars with airbags. The redo of the dash so late in the Box Panther era was the sort of proper commitment that Ford usually demonstrated in the mid and late ’80s, while GM seemed prone to one gaff or cheap out after the next.
The Panther stabilized into a consitent and fairly strong seller during this period. The Grand Marquis version was good for over 100k units annually, and was consistently Mercury’s best seller.
These trends literally reshaped our family from a multiple B body house to a multiple Panther house. None of us have been back to GM since, but we’ve had a least a few Fords around since 1985.
Very true.
It’s interesting how the fortunes of each company are reflected in these cars.
The 1977 B- and C-bodies from GM showed that it could still do it right, given the appropriate level of commitment from top management. These cars were a very confident execution of traditional American virtues in a new package.
The first Panthers, on the other hand, reflect a company forced to make changes it really doesn’t want to make. The cars seem like a half-hearted effort.
But, in the 1980s, Ford got its act together after a brush with bankruptcy in 1980-81. GM, on the other hand, lost its way.
As for quality control – neither company was stellar in that regard in 1979-80, but GM was ahead of Ford in that regard. It was still hit-or-miss for both companies, however, which is why posters on this site can recount horror stories or wonderful experiences with either GM or Ford full-size cars from this era.
After about 1981, however, Ford worked hard to improve its quality control.
GM initially pretended that it didn’t need to improve, and then slid into chaos with Roger Smith’s disastrous 1984 corporate-wide reorganization and his misguided spending spree on automation.
So true about Ford – remember their 1982 commercials – Quality is Job 1? Our ’82 Squire was a very well-built car.
I do think the fullsize Chevy and other B body sedans and wagons did go down hill after the first few years. By 1983, the Panther cars got fuel injection(CFI) and in 1986 the cars got the sequential fuel injection system by contrast It took till 1985 for GM to give the Caprice a FI 4.3 and 1989 to give the Caprice a V8 with fuel injection and those units were only TBI units.
That feature alone would have had me choosing a Crown Vic over a Caprice if I was looking to buy a car new in 1987.
I agree with Chas, that the B-body did improve with time. I think the big let down was the lack of fuel injection. Sure the old Quadrajet was a great carb, and made good power with excellent MPGs. But by the mid 80s there is no reason GM shouldn’t have put a TBI system on these cars. Even the ancient 1987 pickup trucks got TBI, when Caprice V8’s held out until 1989.
A few points though. Like Chas said, GM made big improvements to their transmissions in this era, as the early OD transmissions weren’t the most reliable. Keep in mind though GM used both the TH700-R4 (Chevrolet engines) and the TH200-4R (Chevrolet and BOP engines).
Door belts came in for 1990 and only 1990 to meet passive restraint requirements. 1990-91 Panthers used air bags to meet this standard.
The earlier 1980’s B-bodies had simplier “mechanics” than later cars. In Canada rock solid reliable mechanical Q-jets and mechanical distributors were used until 1987. Early 80’s cars didn’t use the more complex ESC which came in in 1985. 1980 non-California cars were completely mechanical. GM did improve other aspects of the engines through the 1980’s though, like roller cams on both Chevrolet and Olds engines, improved head design, and improved oil seals.
I’ve come close 2 or 3 times in the last 5 years to buying one of these wagons, but always a Mercury version. For some reason Mercury wagons are (or were) slightly more plentiful in my area. Yet the Chevy and Buick wagons of this era (the mid-late 80s) have all but disappeared.
Family haulers from Highland Park, but I can’t just imagine any families living in Highland Park! Even the neighbor Hamtramck seems better and more suitable!
Chrysler packed up and went along I-75 for quite many miles leaving the path in their names.
I owned an ’85 Grand Marquis Colony Park when I was going to college, it was my winter beater. Not great for power or mileage, but what a tank that thing was for a college kid. Being it was my winter car I was not easy on it but it held up well.
It was pretty comparable to the ’83 Caprice my parents had 10 years earlier. Much like today’s Accord and Camry, I don’t think either one was appreciably better or worse overall than the other. A lot of people have claimed otherwise on this site, but I think these reviews today, compared with the review from yesterday that favored the GMs, shows just how close they were.
It strikes me when reading this that a generation of younger drivers will never realize the excitement caused when slamming on the brakes on one of these leviathans with the attendant wheel lock, slewing sideways, nosediving etc. ABS has eliminated all that drama!
Yeah, that was a problem in a lot of vehicles, and contrary to popular opinion, not just with GMs or domestics.
I test drove one that I was ready to buy from a private owner. The guy was a salesman and had put a ton of miles on it, but had maintained it to the Nth degree, too. I think it was an 87 Colony Park and I drove it about 1996.
The memory that sticks with me all these years later is how much the damn thing twisted, shook, squeaked and rattled. The Panther sedans of that vintage had their issues with structural rigidity, but the wagons (this one, at least) were awful. The guy and I could not come to terms on price, and I bought something else – right before he called me back and told me he’d take my money. But too late.
I owned this ’79 LTD wagon for several years – getting rid of it about four years ago. It looked great and was really easy to drive. The car was reliable and in remarkably good condition (dry, front range cars are quite durable). I paid $1,600 for it at an estate auction; the other car in the estate was a Catalina four door sedan from around 1972 or so. I liked the (also maroon) vinyl upholstery but when the temperature was 75 or more, it did get sticky.
I’d buy another one but would next time prefer the latest ones – with EFI and the more rounded noses.
I recently saw a similar car on my local Craigslist, though not as nice as the car pictured. It was white with a blue interior that was pretty well worn. No mention of miles or the state of the A/C’s condition so the asking price of $800 was “iffy”.
I can believe the structural stiffness of these cars wasn’t anything outstanding, but was it really all that much worse than the GM wagons?
I remember reading this Motor Trend article and was shocked by how many problems this test car had, and it’s poor quality. A new car, regardless of price, should not require a ton of “dealer prep” to fix all the problems with the factory.
I’m pleasantly surprised that when I see one of these that is a survivor the majority have dual exhaust which I believe were a hallmark of the trailering package. I guess the people buying these knew which option boxes to check.
The reason for the sales decline is due to the Energy Crisis of 1979, the Iranian Revolution, a dramatic increase in the cost per barrel of oil, stagflation, the weak presidency of Jimmy Carter, Three Mile Island, proposed gas rationing, “Crisis of Confidence” speech – (aka Malaise Speech), Chrysler Bankruptcy rumors, the purchase of AMC by Renault, Japan auto makers surpassing US auto makers, and a general feeling that the US was rapidly declining in power and prestige.
People were anxious and not in a mood to buy anything larger than a foreign car, or a new Ford Escort.
Ford thought they had a loser on their hands with the Panther and it wasn’t until the economy rebounded under Reagan by 1983-84 did it look like we wouldn’t run out of oil. This is one of the reasons the Panther or the big GM cars didn’t get a new body for many years.
Ford fell from 2nd place in auto sales to 4th, behind both Oldsmobile and Buick. GM’s market share rose to 60% of the US market. It was a very hard time.
It may have been downsized, but this car still looks bigger than the house behind it – as I assume was the marketing team’s intention.
Aaaaah yes, I’ve been waiting for this entry for some time now – the basis for the Wagon Queen Family Truckster. I’d love to do that conversion on one, but alas, I’ll have to settle for living vicariously through those who have actually done so, and documented their efforts on these fine interwebs.
“You think you hate it now, wait ’til you drive it!”
The quality comments about this car are fairly consistent with what I recall from 1979. The early Panthers just weren’t screwed together very well. At least the test car was a high-line version, which tended to mitigate some of car’s weaker design points.
Friends of our family bought the base sedan version, and one base model wagon was in my Dad’s company fleet. He brought it home a few times when the normally assigned Delta 88s were all out on the road.
The quality of these cars was pretty awful, seams didn’t line up, and some quirks in design were a pain. The stalk mounted horn has been mentioned several times this week, but I’m not sure I’ve seen reference to the door locks and the tilt wheel.
The front door lock plungers were built into the armrests on base cars, and if you didn’t have the optional power locks, they were a pain to lock and unlock manually.
The tilt wheel always seemed sort of bogus. It tilted at the end of the column, sort of teetered, actually. The GM cars had a proper mid-column tilt.
Our ’76 base model LTD was much nicer in terms of both quality and design than the ’79. The ’79 certainly improved some dymanic qualities, but it was half-baked at introduction.
As I’ve mentioned earlier in this thread, Ford corrected many things in the box Panther during its long production run, and eventually made believers and buyers out of us. But, in 1979, parked next to our various ’77 -’79 GM B bodies, the Ford was quite awful.
I remember during the 70’s when my Dad bought several new Olds he created a punch list of problems that should have been obvious at the factory and the dealership. When I started buying new cars in the 80’s i only had two or three issues that needed dealer attention. Since the 90’s I have never had to take any of my cars back for any quality shortcomings from the factory. And they were domestics! Yep, they sure don’t build them like they used too!
Of the downsized Box wagons from GM and Ford, I preferred the looks of these Panthers to the B-Wagons. The 1980s were such a transition decade in so many ways, and more than any other makes, the Squire and Colony Park–along with the Cadillac Brougham– stuck out and continue to stick out to me as classy symbols of the end of the “old ways”- pre-computer age, pre-cell phones, pre-suvs and minivans, an era which I experienced as a very young person and then saw change and go away.
All that said, there is much to be said for the reviewers complaints: those issues are totally unacceptable for something to be turned over to a magazine tester, let alone a customer. Stupid. The Big Three really did piss it away. And, while these were more efficient, it’s clear some aspect of real usefulness of these wagons was lost when they could no longer tow big things. The SUV could not help but triumph when the choice is between a Suburban that can tow a cabin cruiser and a 302 powered Panther than can tow…a golf cart.
But, I have never owned a big wagon, and it’s been years–early 90s, since I’ve ridden in one, so I’ve lost whatever memory I had of what squeaked and rattled more. As I said in the sedan review comments below, I certainly did appreciate the high driving position in the Panther I owned. A further observation is that that position came without detriment to headroom. I miss headroom: I felt claustrophobic in a friend’s new Lexus I drove recently, mostly because my head was about a millimeter from the roof.
I’m sure that SUVs and minivans and CUVs are all more efficient than wagons, but they’re just so basic and classy with the wood paneling. Miss them.
For a brief period, I had a somewhat worn 1988 Country Squire, immediately after owning a very weathered, tired 1978 Mercury Colony Park. The Country Squire was a decent car, but what I couldn’t get used to was that upright “command seating position.” Compared to that older Mercury’s high window sills and bouncy seats, the Country Squire felt like there was less metal surrounding me. That old 70’s Ford feeling that came from sitting low inside a behemoth tank gets a lot of criticism, but personally, I tend to like it better than the Euro alternative of a higher seating position in relation to the windows. The big Lincolnesque hood of the Mercury was fantastic; it was nice to see the sharp fender edges way out there ahead of you- as opposed to a gently sloping hood that was shorter. That said, the fuel injected 302 was a nice running engine, even with high miles it was very reliable.
I had an 84 Country Squire when it was about 16 years old. With 180k miles, it was well broken in but still ran really well. As others have mentioned, the seat comfort and position was one of its best features. It had the deluxe seats. They were great. It also had vent windows, which was really cool and unusual in cars in that period. Only Ford had them, and they were optional.
I liked the tailgate a lot. I’ve owned B body wagons from the 80’s, and while the basic tailgate features are similar, the Ford worked better. The GM’s were a little hard to close, you’d have to slam them pretty hard in the door mode to close. The Ford would close easily like a regular door. A real pleasure to use. Which reminds me that I liked the way the doors closed as well. Very solid feeling and easy.
I didn’t care for the handling of the Ford compared to the B bodies. Just didn’t feel as smooth and confident. It didn’t track as well and the steering didn’t feel as good. The GM driving “feel” is justifiably famous and IMHO a real thing. I will say that the Ford drove really well under load. A few times I had 5 or 6 people, with a cargo hold full of instruments and I swear the car drove better loaded than empty. It was weird.
One more thing I loved: very easy to see the corners of the car. The slightly raised edges of the hood were totally visible from the driver seat. Between that and the hood ornament, you could see where the front of the car was easily. Being a wagon, the rear was easy to see where it was, too. I had a female friend borrow it once. She was apprehensive about driving a big car. When she brought it back, she said it was the easiest car to park that she’d ever driven due to the visibility. I concured!
I was always amazed at the low power figures of Ford engines during this time era. 132-135 Hp for a 351. That was nearly 40 less than the Chevy 350 of these years and it showed up in worse performance and maybe even mileage. A neighbor had a 1981 302 2BBL Panther wagon and I remember it being a dog and not getting very good MPG. I could swear it was a VV carb. Whatever it was it caused them quite a bit of trouble. Another school friend’s folks owned a 1983 Caprice wagon in two tone blue with the 305 4BBL and 200R4 and it was a superior drive train in every sense including mileage. It seems that Ford and Chevy went back and forth on this. Some years the Gm drive train was superior and other the Ford tested out better. I think by 1986 when the 302 went to CFI that it was a better smoother running unit than the 305 4BBL but not by a lot. The 1989 TBI 305 evened things out a bit more and it’s interesting to note that it made 20 more horses than Ford’s 302 but 15 less torque so the Ford probably stepped out better.
Could we please put simulated wood trim in perspective?
Station wagons had simulated wood trim on their exteriors because of their roots as wood-bodied vehicles up to 1952. The wood look was a part of their heritage. So, while there was no reason for it to be used after 1952, millions of wagon buyers chose it for its look and heritage.
Today it seems that we want to repeatedly knock this, but there is a reason for the look. Fake wood has been used in motor vehicles as soon as it was available as either interior pieces and exterior. It makes about as much sense as vinyl roofs, two tone paint jobs, or racing stripes. There is no reason for a hood ornament either since they are no longer radiator caps, right? Simulated spare tire humps? Leather cargo straps? Roof racks?
It’s OK. There are many other vehicular style affectations that buyers like, this is one of them.
In the mid 1980’s I worked for an on-site inventory company. They had 4 leased Chevy Caprice station wagons for employee transport…and one higher mileage Ford Country Squire station wagon the company owned outright.
Competition to drive the older Ford was intense. Car keys were “lost”, tires deflated and coil wire removal was done to make sure the Ford was “theirs” to drive for that day’s work site transportation. (Don’t ask me how I know this!)
The “Shufflin’ Chevies” stayed unwashed and unloved.
2 things jump out at me, the good is a 4X8 piece of plywood would fit. That’s a big deal. Not a daily, not even monthly thing, but once in a while it’s huge. And the 132HP engine. My god, now did they manage to get it down to that, even with smog. That wouldn’t be good even for a 6, let alone a 351 V8. I know emissions were a problem, but by then they had smog pumps, EGR, dual diaphragm distributors, O2 sensors, Catalytic converters and more. Without even going to FI which VW did back in the 60s on a low priced car. 132HP???
Ok, end of rant. Other thoughts. While downsized, it was still a big car at 214″, but relatively lightweight too at only 3800 pounds. Which I think is a very good thing. Wood trim? I just wish they had made it either longer lasting or easier/cheaper to replace. It’s a nice look on a Mom mobile, when it’s good, but when it turns white or worse, gawd it’s awful.